Butler v. Wilkinson, 740 P.2d 1244 (Utah 1987)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 740 P.2d 1244 (Utah 1987)
- Court / Year: Utah Supreme Court, 1987
- Topic tags: equitable_interest · vendor_security_interest · forfeiture · notice · judgment_lien
- Facts: Tim Themy purchased land under an installment land sale contract from Oral and Edna Mae Wilkinson (no down payment, 9% interest, escalating monthly installments). Judgment creditors of Themy (Butler, the Toomers) sought to reach Themy’s interest in the land, raising whether the vendee’s interest under the contract was leviable property and whether the vendor’s attempted forfeiture had cut it off.
- Holding: (1) Under an installment land sale contract the vendor retains legal title as security for the purchase price — an interest “similar to the security interest of a purchase-money mortgagee.” (2) The vendee holds equitable title, which is “real property” reachable by a docketed judgment against the vendee and which the vendee may mortgage or assign. (3) The vendor failed to forfeit the vendee’s interest because the forfeiture notice did not state the exact amount of the default and what the buyer had to do to cure — defective notice defeats forfeiture.
- Reasoning: Equitable conversion splits the title: legal title (seller) functions as security; equitable ownership (buyer) is the substantial real-property interest. Because the buyer is the equitable owner, the buyer’s interest is leviable and assignable like other realty, and the seller’s power to forfeit that ownership is conditioned on strict, specific default notice.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Cements that a Utah URC/CFD buyer is an owner, not a tenant, and that the seller’s retained title is security — pushing the instrument toward mortgage treatment. Operationally: a Utah forfeiture fails without precise, amount-specific cure notice. For buyers and their creditors, the equitable interest is a real, transferable, leviable asset.
- Good-law status: Good law; routinely cited for the vendor-as-secured-party and forfeiture-notice rules.
- Source (retrieved): https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1987/18486-0.html · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: utah
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.